Helsinki Explaining Active Transportation Success in a City with Winter Karl Saidla, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Ottawa, Human Kinetics
Thanks! University of Ottawa Finland Futures Research Centre-University of Turku Centre for International Mobility Finland City of Helsinki
What is Active Transportation? ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION: walking, cycling, all other forms of non-motorized transportation, and public transit (physical activity benefits)
How is Public Transit Active? People walk (and cycle) in connection with their use of public transit. Americans who use transit spend a median of 19 minutes daily walking to and from transit; 29% achieve 30 minutes of physical activity a day solely by walking to and from transit. (Besser and Dannenberg, 2005)
Why is Active Transportation Smart? Health The Environment Social Life The Economy
The Health Argument Gets people active without them realizing it! In Canada, 85 % do not get recommended levels of physical activity. Risk factor for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and cancer - all among the leading causes of death and disability in Canada. Breathing polluted air is responsible for 21 000 premature deaths in Canada per year.
The Environmental Argument The transport sector accounts for roughly 23 % (and growing) of total greenhouse gas emissions. Within transport sector, private vehicles are the 2 nd largest source of greenhouse gas emissions (after road freight). Increases in active transportation logically lead to decreases in private vehicle use.
The Social Argument Cities that are designed to promote active transportation result in the following: More human interaction More equitable distribution of space Increased mobility for non car owners Improved access to healthy food, recreational opportunities and other resources More fun!
The Economic Argument Traffic congestion costs: $11 billion/year in the Greater Toronto area Health costs: Physical inactivity cost: $6.8 billion/year in Canada Air pollution cost: $8 billion/year in Canada Environmental costs: millions of dollars in lost agricultural production each year. Improved local economies: -e.g., from increased retail revenue in pedestrian/cycle friendly areas, increased property values, and tourism.
Effects of winter
Effects of winter -Overall, there are very few winter cities in the world that have high overall rates of active transportation (typically measured in summer) -Establishing the choice of active transportation as a year round habit seems less likely if we don t/can t choose it throughout the year.
Effects of winter People argue that spending on active transportation infrastructure and maintenance are not justified. Getting people out of their cars is always an uphill battle. But when there s snow and ice on the hill, as there is for almost half the year in Ottawa, it s almost impossible. (Ottawa Citizen, 2014). instead of spending money on clearing bike lanes the city should devote more cash on repairing pot holes. Who rides a bike in the winter anyway? she asked. I m pretty darn sure there are only a handful of winter cyclists because it would be too cold. (Calgary Sun, 2012)
Active Transportation in Canadian Winter Cities? Percentage of people using active transportation for commuting (measured in summer): Edmonton: 16 % Calgary: 22% Ottawa: 28 % Montreal: 29 % Quebec City: 18%
Active Transportation in International Winter Cities? Very few cities in the world have both winter and high rates of active transportation In EPOMM database (401 cities), only 9 cities have more than 70 % of their population commuting by active transportation. Of these, only 1 city deals with a cold winter climate.
Helsinki: Leading by Example 77% of commuters use active transportation. Public transit: 34% Walk: 32% Bike: 11%
Active Transportation Rates (http://www.epomm.eu) 120 Modal Split Chart 100 80 23 60 72 34 40 11 20 0 19 2 7 Ottawa 32 Helsinki Walk Bike PT Car
Helsinki: Looks a bit Canadian! Population: 615 000 (Metro region: 1.4 million) Population Density: 1900 people/square kilometre for the urban area. Roughly the same as Ottawa s urban area. Not very dense! Climate: Humid continental climate. Permanent snow cover from December to March. Topography: 0 to 45 m above sea level
Helsinki: Looks a bit Canadian! Car ownership and driving: 404 cars/1000 inhabitants. Ottawa s urban transit area: 530 cars/1000 inhabitants. Canada: 555/1000 inhabitants Finland: 487 /1000 inhabitants More kilometres per person are driven in Finland than in Canada.
Helsinki: Looks a bit Canadian! Socioeconomic factors: Ottawa and Helsinki found to be quite similar according indicators of the following: Wealth Democracy Livability Commitment to environmental sustainability Physical Activity and Obesity Sex and Age Distributions
How did Helsinki do it? Strong and long term political commitment The main goal of both the inner city master plan and the suburban area master plan is an urban structure making efficient use of the public transport system, and in particular, the rail transport system; thus the rail system has to be developed to correspond to the urban structure (Helsinki Master Plan process, 1970) The purpose of the Traffic Planning Division is to suggest the means to develop the Helsinki traffic system so as to ensure safe and economical transport of people and goods without delays and adverse effects on the environment (Helsinki City Planning Department, 1982)
How did Helsinki do it? Clear policy-level prioritization of public transit over cars use since the late 1960s. High level of investment in all forms of supportive infrastructure Research into transportation demands and outcomes of different transport strategies. Willingness to experiment with pilot projects.
How did Helsinki do it?
How did Helsinki do it? Provision of high quality active transportation systems: Buses Commuter trains (3 separate lines) Long distance trains (to most major Finnish towns) Streetcars (13 routes) Subway (1 line with split) On demand bus system Multi-use recreational paths Cycle tracks Sidewalks Pedestrian streets
How did Helsinki do it? Public transit system repeatedly ranked as the top city in Europe according to customer satisfaction. More than 2600 kms of facilities for cycling in the metropolitan area. Pedestrians assisted by high quantity and quality of sidewalks and recreational paths, traffic calming, and a network of car-free streets
How did Helsinki do it? Supportive urban planning and housing policies: City Planning Department Operating Philosophy (1983): The purpose of the City Planning Department is to further the development of Helsinki as a functional, healthy, and attractive city. Competitions for proposed development by competition, with parameters established by the city. Development planned in coordination with transport planning, with access to public transport a priority.
How did Helsinki do it? Supportive urban planning and housing policies: High number of people living in the downtown core. Open and transparent city planning processes. High degree of collaboration and coordination between the City Planning Department and the Traffic Planning Division. High level of commitment to preservation of green space, organized according to a green fingers concept that provides corridors for active transportation.
How did Helsinki do it? 3. Policies that discourage automobile use: Number of parking spaces restricted Speed limits are low and fines are high (tied to income) Considerable road space reserved for public and active transport. No expressways into downtown core Fuel, vehicles, licenses are all very expensive (national level policies)
Politically, how was this possible? 1. Geography: Downtown Helsinki s location on a peninsula made it obviously difficult to accommodate a large amount of traffic. This motivated careful planning and helped in making the choice to emphasize sustainable transport. Voters understood the constraints.
Factors affecting politics 2. Slow economic development/late urbanization Late growth in automobile traffic. Took until late 1960s before automobile traffic presented planning challenges. By this time, problems associated with cars beginning to be obvious.
Factors affecting politics 3. Smith-Polvinen Traffic Study and Plan 1968 major traffic study and traffic plan. Included a major expressway system through downtown Helsinki. Highly criticized and extremely unpopular. Majority of people at the time were public transport users. Since this time, the city has prioritized public transport. Public transport users have continued to outnumber car drivers for commuting.
Factors affecting politics 4. City of Helsinki Land Ownership The city owns roughly 65 per cent of the land in Helsinki. Development generally takes place according to public ground lease ( leasehold ) agreements. This allows the city to have housing development occur according to its own plans (which, because of the factors above, tended to be considered in the context of the prioritization of public transport).
Factors affecting Politics 5. A city of apartment dwellers 85% of all dwellings are apartments. This means that housing occupies less space and it is easier to limit sprawl and preserve green space. Density low by European standards, but high in the central area
Factors affecting politics 4. Strong Tradition in Planning Regular visits to other countries to study and learn from their examples starting in 19 th century. Early master plans 1911 by Bertel Jung and Eliel Saarinen identified future transportation challenges and established tradition of preserving green space and emphasizing aesthetics.
Political system factors 1. Two Major Levels of Government Only two major levels of government: national and municipal. Municipal governments have both considerable responsibilities and autonomy. Municipal governments collect a flat income tax: 20 % Helsinki in a position of financial strength
Political system factors 2. Municipal Political System: Political parties and no wards Allows the articulation of clear party-held positions. Councillors do not represent particular areas within city less likely to block active transportation investment.
What does this mean for us? Factors related to politics clearly matter Support from the voters necessary People like active transportation when they have experienced it, and will vote for it (pilot projects!) Long term planning and public discussion about transportation alternatives extremely worthwhile. Need strong political representation. Municipalities need dependable funding for infrastructure
What does this mean for us? Policies (beyond direct investment in active transportation infrastructure) Densification and housing organized to work with public transit. Preserve and use green space for active transportation corridors. Municipalities to pursue land acquisition and leasehold agreements?